Friday, December 28, 2012

My apologies to our readers. Usually when anything regarding Christian history — and particularly early Roman Catholicism — is proposed for posting, I have a look at it first. Though the Baron is widely read in European history, matters concerning the Church have never been his forte.

Thus, the proposition below regarding the Jesuits, specifically the contention that they were in existence at the time specified, got by him. As he said to me this morning, given the speculative nature of the essay, he didn’t pursue that point. But it is my failure to read the original essay that has created this problem.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ignatius Loyola didn’t found the Society of Jesus until the mid 16th century or so. You can read about him and the Jesuits (the Jesus-ites, so to speak) here. In this simplified version you will see where his impetus to “convert the Moors” arose.

One of the commenters on that thread mentions Jack Chick as the source in this essay for the story about the Jesuits. Oh my. I’ve never read any of his tracts but I am familiar with his approach. Evangelical Christianity has had to work hard to overcome the anti-intellectual stigma forced on them via guilt-by-association attacks, just because Chick happens to be an evangelist also. However, his anti-historical and anti-Catholic animus have supplied detractors of Catholicism with some red meat while also giving “evangelism” a bad name. Chick is definitely an aid to aggressive atheism.

We have always rigorously abided by the dictum that once something is posted it remains posted. We don’t push anything down the memory hole. So MC’s post stands, but with caveats.

Had I been feeling well enough to read what MC clearly labels his “speculation” I’d have had him remove that section and edit some of the rest. But I wasn’t and therefore he didn’t. Thus (in my Pollyanna belief about “an ill wind”) I can assure you we will be more careful in the future. Since you never see what doesn’t make it onto the blog, there’s no way for you to know we’re usually more careful.

As for MC’s goof, well… next time he’ll know that search engines are helpful when making assertions. “Google is your best friend” sometimes; this is one of those times. However, the assertion that there is a “blood libel” here mystifies me. If I take MC to task for his failure to source his material, I also question the wisdom of any commenter who ends his criticism with “disgusting”. That appears to be falling into the same tar bucket that Chick inhabits.

MC is a valuable reporter for all things Sderot and I hope he will continue to send material. He’s doing important work as our correspondent and I hope he is willing to continue.

Our Israeli correspondent MC offers some speculation about the first wave of Islamic invasion in the Near East, North Africa, and Europe. He notes its relevance to what is unfolding now throughout the Western world during this, the Third Wave of the Great Jihad.

No News From Sderot — A Speculationby MC

There is no news from Sderot, so I am going to speculate.

There was once a story from an escaped Jesuit that Mohammed created Islam at the behest of Rome in order to clear out opposition from North Africa and wrest Jerusalem from the Eastern Roman empire that was based in Constantinople.

Whilst there is little to confirm this speculation, the interesting part of it, should it be anywhere near true, is that having taken Jerusalem, it would appear that the Islamic hoards refused to honour the agreement and give the Holy Land to the Pope of that time. So the “crusade” by Islam had to be met and halted by a counter-crusade from Rome and its allies (this bit is factual).

Why is this relevant? Because in this day and age it is achingly obvious that Islam is once more being sponsored by Western governments. A similar question then arises: Will those Western governments be able to stop the juggernaut before we are all consumed?

First, however, we have to satisfy ourselves as to why are our respective governments so head over heels for Islam. Why have they ‘fallen off of their camels’ for Cairo? What is in it for them?

Let us take a look at London. Why would a Conservative government imprison Tommy Robinson, kangaroo-style?

Of course Cameron’s government is not Conservative. It is not even conservative with a small “c”. In kow-towing to Clegg it has become left of centre. To stay in power Cameron must court Clegg.

Conspiracy theorists would say that both of them are only puppets of the New World Order, so what does it matter? And if UKIP attains power, they too will become NWO puppets as their leaders have their prices met and even exceeded (or maybe this is where the current paedophilia fashion comes into play). Somehow the powers behind the thrones will pervert all and sundry.

But why the love affair with Islam? Is it the violent nature of Islam that so beguiles our leaders (formal or informal)? Or is it the huge wealth of Islam that buys their loyalty?

The Islamic crusade which slaughtered the millions in North Africa comprised an organised band of looters and desperados ripping through peaceful and settled lands. In the residue of the Pax Romana, the bread basket thus became a dust bowl.

But in modern times, war is carried out not in the street, but at the bank.

We are in a long and deep economic recession, happily administered by an American president of dubious motivation whose past is a secret kept from the electorate, and who has now been re-elected on the strength of an vote that shows much evidence of having been rigged (and an opposing candidate who could not even have won a straight election).

This story would not be out of place in a fantasy novel, but unfortunately Gandalf and Aragorn are missing and the Hobbits are in their burrows watching Big Brother. So Sauron goes from strength to strength.

Thus my bank account too becomes a dust bowl. There will come a time when I too am enslaved by the Barbary Pirates of Banking .

The world owes the USMC a huge debt: on the shores of Tripoli they cauterised a malignant growth that had paralysed sea trade in the Mediterranean and thus most of the Western world. Behind the Marines was a strong and insightful leader, with the nerve to project nascent US sea power on a three thousand mile surgical invasion, in sailing ships. Britain and France were better equipped and closer, but preferred to pay the ransoms.

Unfortunately, Jefferson is also missing today.

If indeed the huge wealth of Islam has bought the loyalty of our leaders, then they need to watch out: wealth is only wealth if there is something to buy. Whilst Islam giveth, Islam also taketh away. Islamic countries are poor countries, with a few hugely rich families dominating. Those families have unlimited power, and they do not share it. Bought leaders will in their turn be enslaved, the “useful idiots” cited by Lenin will become the “greedy morons” of Al Saud.

If, however, our leaders think to use the violence endemic in Islam for their own Hegelian ends, to supply the “Eastern” antithesis to the “Western” thesis, then they need to be aware of what may have happened last time. The juggernaut rolled, but it did not stop at Jerusalem, or Constantinople: it ended up at the very Gates of Vienna and the Holy Roman Empire itself.

20
comments:

Read White Gold for an account of the depredations of Barbary pirates on the SW coast of England and elsewhere, and the successful measures taken by the Royal Navy to put an end to them, and their base. It's not a work of history in the sense of being written by an acknowledged historian, however it was written by a competent writer on historical matters.

I'd like to read an account of the efforts of the USMC. Do you have a reference?

So your posting conspiracy theories from Jack Chick now. So let's see...Jesuit - 16th Century onwards; Islam - 7th Century onwards. An "escaped Jesuit" oooooooh. Pure, unadulterated Jack Chick which can be traced back to that wretched deviant if you took the time to do so.

By even allowing this to be printed, you are by default endorsing the spread of these lies. Dare I say, a blood libel. Disgusting.

Chrissie hit the mark - Jack Chick all the way. I still have that booklet. When looked at in the light of history, the entire thing collapses. The Western and Eastern Churches were, at the point when Islam arose, about a half a million miles from the Catholic/Orthodox disputes that were to come. In fact, the first real post-Arian east/west controversy was that of the iconoclasts (Some time after the advent of Islam), which itself was partially motivated by the need of the Byzantines to appear not-too reliant on images while image-hating Muslims were advancing against the imperial frontier. The imperial treasury also needed precious metals, which were plentiful in the churches.

North Africa was Catholic to the core. Even the Donatists were, if anything, hyper-Catholics and can be looked at as a sort of Jansenist sect of their time. The Catholic Church had no need to pick a fight in regards to either region. That body had more than enough to content with on its own in seventh century Italy.

Chrissie and Pleistarchos, I am very sorry to have trodden on RC sensitivities, but please re-read the article, at no time do I claim that the Jesuits or Roman Catholics were responsible for Islam. Or that North Africa had any religion whatsoever.

What did happen was an almost unstoppable crusade by the forces of Islam. Had this been taken out early on, it would have been controllable, that it was allowed to mature cost Europe hugely.

William:-Jefferson's plan for an international coalition foundered on the shoals of indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war. The United States's relations with the Barbary states continued to revolve around negotiations for ransom of American ships and sailors and the payment of annual tributes or gifts. Even though Secretary of State Jefferson declared to Thomas Barclay, American consul to Morocco, in a May 13, 1791, letter of instructions for a new treaty with Morocco that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," the United States continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795 alone the United States was forced to pay nearly a million dollars in cash, naval stores, and a frigate to ransom 115 sailors from the dey of Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he refused to accede to Tripoli's demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and an annual payment of $25,000. The pasha of Tripoli then declared war on the United States. Although as secretary of state and vice president he had opposed developing an American navy capable of anything more than coastal defense, President Jefferson dispatched a squadron of naval vessels to the Mediterranean.

Gruff, consider reading Ian Toll's "Six Frigates: The Epic History of the Founding of the U.S. Navy". Check out the reader reviews and you'll see that the real history in this book is told as vibrantly as in White Gold.

Ever since the Windrush docked in 1948 Britain has seen race riots with each generation of young West Indians, the most dramatic in London in 2011, although they tried to maintain that they weren't race riots.

And I am told that we have had muslim riots here about that anti-islamic film this year that the press was not even allowed to publicise. A D notice was slapped on them. "They never existed", nudge nudge wink wink.

As for terrorist attacks, they are now coping with a double whammy, trying to nip in the bud the myriad of planned islamic terror attacks by "British" muslims and now terrified of a home grown Anders Breivik who might, as Breivik did, have them or one of their political parties in his sights.

Of course one day the English might actually riot, haven't they been given just cause over the last 60 years? It is, however, extremely unlikely. They are just pretending it isn't happening.

Don't you just love our wonderful vibrant multicultural society? London is such an exciting city now that it is no longer English. God, weren't those English dull!!

Some young Swedish Jews felt the same way about Malmo. They left to join the IDF because it felt safer to do so. I have never been able to find the post I wrote about that. To mix a few religious doctrines, their actions in the face of Malmo's indifference to the fate of its Jews was my baptism by fire, so to speak. Over the years, my hope for Malmo has died, along with my innocence generally re Jew hatred in Europe.

A fascinating book on Jefferson's learning curve re the Barbary States is this one:

It led me to studying more about our early years - Jefferson originally wanted just a littoral Navy but once we lost the protection of the British Navy we had to grow up quickly if we wanted *anything* in the way of trade beyond our own borders.

That led me to studying piracy Western style. But it wasn't until I got to Emmet Scott's book that many of the loose ends came together. If you haven't read Scott's book, I urge you to do so. The experience will cause a paradigmatic shift in one's thinking re what we thought we knew about "Western Civ"...

No need for apologies. I certainly did not misunderstand any of what you wrote. It was more than clear that you did not profess to believe it. I only needed to ensure that the other readers were aware of the origins and the lack of foundations of the story to which you referred. Note also to all that I meant "contend" rather than "content" my comment. I was bleary-eyed and clicked on the wrong correction offering.

I guess that I should add for the record that, although I am Catholic, my comment had nothing at all to do with my reply. I am, unfortunately, quite compulsive on making sure the story is straight whether or not it supports my side.

Can I just say to the commenters who have criticised the original post - the question of why on earth our politicians are sucking up to Islam is indeed a good question.

I think that any theory with any explanatory power whatsoever deserves an airing.

If problems arise with it down the line, fair enough. That's what freedom of speech is - that's how we progress & learn more than we knew before.

So if we've all learnt a few things from this post, well that's fine then. The question still remains though: why on earth would Western politicians today suck up to Islam and deliberately and knowingly corrupt our own societies in its name?

I think the original and major reasons were Oil, Oil and Oil. If Europe were not dependent upon Muslim oil we would not see the situation that we have currently. I don't know why this issue is not adressed more frequently in CJ forums.

A second reason is the momentum following Europe's agreement with the Arab League decades ago to allow Muslim immigration in return for the cessation of terrorist bombings in Europe, mainly by (proxy?) Palestinians.

Related to the 2nd reason, the huge numbers of Muslims now living in Europe comprise a 3rd reason in that politicians are scared merdeless (as we say in the U.S. :) about Muslim violence and, given the nature of our spineless politicians, will do almost anything to appease Muslims in order to try to prevent this violence.

The 4th reason involves the (leftist) politicians pandering to Muslims in exchange for Muslim votes. These slimy politicians give even politicians a bad name.

The 5th reason reinforces the previous reasons. The incoherent ideology of PC Multiculturalsm both gives cover to the politicians and the Islamists and gives everyone a generally accepted belief in which they can take refuge.

Again, I do not understand why the Western world's dependence upon Muslim oil is not addressed more frequently by the CJ. It is critical. Perhaps I'm missing something here.

Regrading the question posed by anonymous, I submit the following:I have long held that the Marxists/Progressives need Islam. The former wants to do away with sovereign nations, and Islam is nothing if not pan-national. The Western Man is an individual and Islam allows for no such thing.(Their men do nothing at all when in-laws torture or kill their daughters). Christianity and Judaism provide roadblocks to the Progressive agenda and, barring issues of sexual morality, Islam throws open the gates to full control of the State. Progressives need to eliminate the Middle Class and Islam provides a great means for that. Progressives have worked without pause to make our people ignorant of their history/heritage and largely illiterate and Islam by does both to any society it controls. The West traditionally encourages competition in business and Islam is more oligarchic in nature. I am sure that there are more examples but I am worn out from stacking firewood.

Hi, even the approach, maybe this is quite related about "where will ... stop" , I did a quick Bing search before send it;

1991 – President Bush, 41, launched his land-for-peace deal giving away Israeli land to the Palestinians. The same day the PERFECT STORM hits New England in the US with 100 foot waves that pound the area including GHW Bush’s house.August 23, 1992 – Talks resume for Israel to surrender land for peace. 24 hours later Hurricane Andrew slams the southern US costing $30 billion in damage.April 27-September 13, 1993 – Israel and PLO sign a compromise peace agreement in Washington, DC. During this time, the nation is hit with the most devastating flooding in US history costing $21 billion.August 25-September 10, 2001 – The USA, Saudi Arabia, and Israel prepare the most comprehensive peace deal ever. The Twin Towers and Pentagon were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, just prior to the plans being finalized. Cost was $40 billion.November 7-12, 2002 – During Ramadan, President Bush, #43, hosts a dinner to honor Islam and the “revelation of God’s word in the holy Koran.” When officials flew to Israel to pressure them into a peace deal, 88 out-of-season tornadoes slam 7 states.August 28, 2005 – US pressures Israel to pull out of the Gaza strip. The next day a tropical depression forms into Hurricane Katrina and pounds the US becoming the largest disaster in US history while wiping out New Orleans and costing over $200 billion.

I'm an Evangelical myself, hold no brief for Rome, and the whole idea that Rome created Islam strikes me as utterly preposterous.

Jack Chick and people like him think that Arabs (rather than a mix of Amazigh, Phoenicians, Greeks, and Latins) inhabited North Africa before the Islamic conquest, and that Augustine's predestinarianism (Chick is apparently an Arminian) birthed Islam's.